Kinda OT but this part
Under existing law, a person in this state who manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for
sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun

interests me. How is the conversion of a SSE pistol into a non rostered pistol not manufacturing in the same way that taking a 10/30 and making it a hi cap is manufacturing?

How is changing the sights not 'manufacturing' - that also changes the gun from the 'as tested' configuration.

Answer: it's legal to do things to the guns you already own - the Roster is a limitation on what a CA-licensed FFL may sell. (Don't create an 'assault weapon'.)

dickinson is now my assemblyman. What is his motivation for doing this?

His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit...

Ray

__________________
NRA Benefactor

Quote:

Untamed1972: "I'm sorry Sir.....but the 2A is specifically intended to make sure gov't, at any level, DOES NOT have a monopoly on deadly force."

please do, I'm looking forward to reading his description of this bill on his home page. "this bill will keep those dangerous cop guns off the street that are exactly like the gun that is on a special list but wasn't put on the list because they want children to starve from lowered revenues"

His campaign advisers are across the breezeway from my office. Last week I took a printout on the local "NSSF First Shots" event over there. I think I'll go pay a visit and ask what problem this bill is supposed to solve. Probably need to brush up on the relevant PC before the visit...

Ray

Also, if it's addressing the Sac PD and Sheriffs that were PPT'ing here, brush up on the Federal laws on strawman purchases, etc.

OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.

OK...as an LEO, I fully support dumping the stupid roster...it's merely a veiled threat to take away the options of other types of guns that may be older design, cheaper, etc. It also encompasses "safety measures" that are invented in the minds of people who have no idea about what they are doing. Basically, it was only made to make guns harder to possess.

The bill irritates me, because I have one or two guns that I can now sell only to fellow LEO's or out of state. However a few of my comrades made this mess by the issues in Sacramento, and we're going to be stuck with it if the bill passes.

As for the bill that created the roster itself, PORAC, I believe opposed the actual bill. However, when the exemption was put in, they lost any standing to challenge it in court.

Would PORAC generally go out after a bad bill because it's "bad" when it doesn't affect it's members. Probably not, because that's not their mission. They may all agree it's a stupid law, and will oppose it as a bad idea, but will not likely go on the lobby warpath over it, because that's spent political capital they may need for something else. Not to mention, there are a good number of officers who may believe in gun control, so now you're pitting members against members. Thats politics, and it stinks, but that's how our jacked up state works.

Our problem is that we have a vocal minority here in CA who are pro gun. The vast majority don't care, or listen to the drivel put out by the press. The you have the vocal minority on the other side who want gun control, and they have all the media to trumpet their agenda, and 60-80% of the politicians.

If we want change, we need to import more conservative gun-friendly people and tip the scales. I don't know how you make that happen.

Welp...perhaps PORAC should start looking past their own noses.

They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.

Again, PORAC is a membership organization. It does what the members tell it. If I was a member of an organization that was heading in a direction I didn't like, I'd:

They oppose a bill until their constituency is exempted, then they drop their opposition (which is a tacit endorsement). But when the exemption is deemed unfair, and it's decided that citizens need to be treated equally with respect to the law, they sqwak. First it happened with AWs, now it's happening with rostered guns.

Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?

Isn't this the same behavior that people were up in arms with the NRA over? Remember the bill to make the membership rolls of all non-profits public information? The NRA opposed the bill until there was an exemption for .orgs over a certain number which effectively protected the NRA and ACLU. Suddenly the NRA dropped their objection because it no longer effected their members. Isn't this the same thing PORAC is doing?

The point of the bill was to "expose" the membership lists of non-profits who were opposed to the current administration (remember who sponsored and pushed it).

But the point of the NRA objection was to kill the bill - which it did. They essentially inserted a poison pill into it.

Chess. Not checkers. Remember.

I don't think that the PORAC carve-out was intended to do the same (actually, I know it wasn't since the carve-out was a seperate piece of legislation proffered in the wake of Silveria.)

Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.

Agreed. I believe the way to best address the issue is get rid of the roster.

When I complained about the Brown legal opinion, and they said they couldn't do anything- so I took them to task on the whole AWB. They agreed its a bad law, but believed they could never repeal it...it's just too ingrained in the political landscape in Sacramento. I was frustrated, but the guy in PORAC was someone I've worked with in the past, and know he is trying to do what is best for the whole of his membership, not just me...

That said, I think we need to remember that cops are pulled from the gnereal public at large, and fewer and fewer are as pro gun as I am. I would wager to say that many of them work areas like LA and Oakland and have seen what the AK can do. Others just don't beleive in guns. So to direct your ire at cops, expecting them to be pro gun, it may be misdirected...

Just trying to change them one opinion at a time.

As for the assault weapon cleanup legislation, the cleanest way to do it, and the most fair would be to remove the named and Kassner guns from the assault weapons ban so it's by characteristic only. Then when you retire, you throw on a bullet button and keep your gun, no one's out any money except the cost of the bullet button. Then the officer advises the state that the gun has been made non-assault weapon-ish...and it drops off the registration.

Regarding the AWs, there was a concerted effort between some Gunny lobbyists and the PORAC lobbyist to create an amnesty period for folks to register AWs. They were just about agreed on it when PORAC backed out, said that they were going to go for an LEO registration only and that they Gunnies could "just sue" on equal protection grounds.

Think again. They apparently already want to control what we legally hunt out of state.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

But I can arrest someone on or off duty, check out a full auto , carry where others can't , tell someone what they can and can't do, etc due to my employment.

Why not just challenge everything? Would that make any sense?.

I was not an LE in my early life. I never questioned why I cant do what federal agent,local cop or US Marine can.

Making any sense?
I am very much for SHALL ISSUE CCW. But LE will always be able to do things or to have things that most people can't.

FBI can do what people in my agency can't. We live with it ....

The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

The flaw in your argument is you don't distinguish the difference between in the line of duty, in which case I support some special powers, and off-duty as a citizen which I think should not carry over LEO special powers. Selling off Roster firearms is not a duty function.

OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.

OK. Understand Your point . I also see few issues here....Let me brake it down.

Just few facts.
1). When I change out of my uniform ( on days I do wear a uniform) , clip and LE only knife to my jeans, holster a GEN4 .40 cal Glock (with another 15rd or 22rd magazines) , clip on a badge , put on a shirt and go home , I am STILL an LEO.
BY STATE LAW and Department policy.
I am just not working right that moment.

2). If and when I will have to draw my weapon to save a life , I will be acting as an LEO , NOT a civilian.

3). When I am off I can be called back to work anytime . In some situations , I have to keep with me stuff that 99% of the people CAN'T even own.

4). Last one.

I have not visited or worked in in a single county in the world where LE officers and armed Government agents are treated EXACTLY the same way as everyone else when they are not working.

PS. My agency and many others DO CONTROL what we can and can not carry . ON and OFF duty.

You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

You raise good general points and I agree with you in as far as off-duty LEO privileges benefit society as the ones you mention do. How does having special sales privileges of privately-owned arms benefit public safety? It doesn't so it doesn't pass the utility to public safety test. that's was the real point I intended to make.

I see.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.

No argument from me that the Roster is not at all about safety. I cannot buy a different finish identical pistol if it too wasn't tested and approved.
It is clear it is a thinly veiled attempt to make acquiring and owning handguns more difficult and one day I hope the courts will strike it down. I 'd like LEOs to lose their non-public safety oriented privileges so they stop supporting anti-gun laws for the rest of us. I know not all of you support them, but clearly a lot do.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

Spring-loaded blades for one: active duty military and LEO only for instance.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

I take great pride in reminding you (and everyone else) that I was NOT one of those Calgunners. I still can't believe all the people who thought JB was going to be our friend somehow. Just amazing.

NO, they said that EMeg was worse for gun rights.

__________________
...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

I can take it one step firther. ROSTER makes no sense. There is nothing unsafe about modern handguns that are not ont he roster. They would not be issued to us if they were unsafe.

NOW. Since we are on the subject, THERE are handguns (old , modified, poor quality) that are not very safe to cary with a round in the chamber or under a hammer.

But thats a different subject.

Yep, the real unsafe guns are roster exempt.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

__________________
Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming - you or yours again.

If the gun lobby opposes this and other LEO-targeted bills, we should get something in return from the police unions/associations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but years ago, didn't the largest national police association lobby congress for a LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment? I believe the police association courted the NRA's support, but the NRA declined and may have even actively opposed such an exception. It was the NRA's big F-U to the police association because the police association had supported the federal AWB. Actions have consequences. To this day, there is no LEO exception to the Lautenberg amendment.

I tried to google it and find a cite, but I failed. Do I have my facts straight?